If it's so great, and it's a perfect design, then why doesn't all animals have the exact same reproductive system? Why are there such a variation based on genetic differences instead of systematic similarities? Again, if it's so great as you say it is, then why doesn't everyone have the same?
On investigating the various reproductive systems in the natural world, I see amazing variety in the way creatures reproduce replicas of themselves. When we look at herding land animals for example, do we see some that appear to be evolving into something different from the other members of their herd? Vast numbers are seen...all the same. The genetics are virtually locked in. Mutations do not, for the most part produce beneficial results, they are usually detrimental to the survival of the animals and defective creatures are at a disadvantage. This is true of all species, on land or in the sea. Yet science wants us to believe that beneficial mutations happen routinely throughout the process of evolution in all species. I don't believe it.
Do you know that evolutionary (genetic) algorithms are used today, and now even medication is starting to be developed using evolution. If it doesn't work according to you, then why does it work according to reality? Evolution is true because we know it's true. There's no doubt about it anymore.
You can believe God created evolution for all I care, but I do know for certainty that evolution is true.
You can believe whatever you wish, but I don't believe that anyone can "prove" that "organic" evolution ever took place.
Who is the mathematician who invented these algorithms? You seem to take so much for granted. Can blind chance produce precise mathematical calculations in order to bring about beneficial change?
The ability for bacteria to mutate because of the intervention of man is a whole other story to things left in their natural state for millions of years. No one disputes adaptation......but adaptation does not support one "kind" becoming a totally unrelated "kind". There are roadblocks in the genes to prevent that from happening.
Design through random change and selective process does work. It's been used many times and in many different project. So... since it does work, then I don't have to defend it. It's just a fact that it does.
Change is clearly demonstrated in superficial areas of the anatomy of many species. But change in color, size or shape does not mean that any creature eventually changes into another "kind" of creature. In the "projects" conducted by science, the changes seen were not changes in the basic genetic construction of the creature. The flies remained flies...the fish remained fish, the plants remained plants. Evolutionists tend to make quantum leaps of faith after that.
Their musings then go into the realms of fantasy rather than established "provable" fact. This is what evolutionists will not admit. It requires as much "faith" to believe in evolution as it does to believe in an intelligent designer.
Micro-evolution does not prove macro-evolution, no matter how clever the claimants consider themselves to be. Supposition is not fact. Educated guessing is not a substitute for actual evidence.
And who's the programmer? Since nature is programming at this moment, through genetic variation and selection, and that it works, I can only say that programmer and program are one and the same. Pantheism.
What is "nature"? Some use the title "Mother" as if "she" somehow replaces the "Father". Nature is the creation....not the creator.
The creation itself declares its incredible designer to be an absolute cteative and mathematical genius.
You are free to disagree.
